Should not Humanity be More Important than any god ?

[Magical Realist]

Indeed. The objective evidence here is that the victim had a certain person's DNA on her body. Does anyone dispute that evidence? Does the evidence hold true irrespective of the perspective? Yes.
The interpretation (that the husband therefore killed the victim) is subjective, but the interpretation is not the evidence.

No...the evidence is that she had her husband's DNA on her body. Evidence of what though? That she had been murdered by her husband? Not necessarily. The very definition of the DNA as evidence is in question here, and it depends on what you are specifically claiming that DNA to be evidence of. Evidence is always a matter of interpretation. There is no evidence without that interpretation. Without that interpretation, it is mere barren fact, empty of implication or meaning.

You need to distinguish between the evidence and the interpretation thereof. Objective evidence is the fact.

There is no distinction between evidence and the interpretation of a fact as evidence. They are one in the same. Evidence doesn't just sit out there waiting to show us which theory of ours is correct. Facts or measurements taken as evidence presuppose a context in which those facts or measurements have a particular meaning AS evidence. Without that context, which consists of propositions of language, the fact means nothing. It is simply a fact, void of any evidential function.

 

[Spellbound]

The evidence, yes. Your interpretation, no.

So now you have access to my thoughts?

 

[Magical Realist]

But given all that kind of philosophical stuff, inquirers who make measurements of the same physical world variables will typically obtain the same values, values which do seem to tell us something about the thing that's being measured and not just about ourselves and our own beliefs.

There is a thin line between objective existence and group consensus. I think what frequently tries to pass itself of as objective is merely a conventional way of defining something by the reigning social hegemony. "Objectifying" evidence for example suits a particular agenda and view of the world that makes it seem like that evidence cannot be questioned. It seeks to elevate a theory as a fact of the world when clearly it is not.

In my opinion, the idea of producing the same kind of evidence of God as we produce when measuring physical world variables is much more problematic, since we appear to have no understanding of what kind of thing gods are supposed to be, how to establish reference to a god should gods exist, what methods to use to gather information about gods, or how to best interpret any information that we do manage to gather.

And it isn't at all clear what other kinds of evidence might be more applicable to gods or how to distinguish when it is evidence of gods themselves and not just evidence of somebody's belief in or feelings about gods.

Evidence for God may not be physical or empirical. Maybe its an a priori concept, like spacetime itself. If God is absolute and beyond space and time, we certainly wouldn't expect to find physical evidence for him any more than we would find physical evidence of other transcendental categories of being like infinity, necessity, possibility, or dimensionality. Or if God is like a cosmic mind, we probably wouldn't find any more evidence for him in the physical universe than we would find for our own mind by examining our own brains. We can barely prove consciousness exists. Yet noone doubts it for a second, seeing it is immediately self-evident. Maybe God is like that--too close to all of us to be able to be said to exist discretely.

 

[Yazata]

There is a thin line between objective existence and group consensus.

I'm a realist, so of course I will disagree vehemently with that.

But I'll happily agree that the things that people believe have objective existence are closely associated with group consensus at particular moments in history.

Where you and I differ, I think, is that I don't identify what really exists with what a particular community happens to believe exists. I believe that there's a universe out there independent of my or anyone else's consciousness of it. I believe that it's possible for us to learn new truths about that universe.

It's obviously possible for us to be wrong. And it's certainly possible for things to exist that are currently unknown and undiscovered. (Most of the details of the universe would seemingly fit that description.)

I think what frequently tries to pass itself of as objective is merely a conventional way of defining something by the reigning social hegemony.

I agree that's often the case. It's especially true in matters of ethics and aesthetics, and stuff like that. Politics. Religion. People believe that God exists or that racism is an evil, but it isn't clear how people came to know those things, beyond those ideas being deeply entrenched in particular cultures.

I think that this social-constructionism less common in natural science. At least ideally, natural science has higher epistemological standards than many other areas of life.

 

[C C]

There's no such thing as "objective evidence". Evidence by its very nature is a fact or measurement interpreted to prove a specific theory or hypothesis. [...] Evidence is not objective. It is a spinning of data to support a preconclusion. It only makes sense in a given explanatory context. It doesn't exist in itself.

What a society sets-up as a consensus standard for minimal bias, however, is still part of the "authority" of its kind of "sub-reality" of nature which one is a member or citizen of. If gods were real, the consequences of defying the applicable one's mandates and conceptions of "what is going on" would have to be contended with. While lightning bolts are not necessarily the consequence of conflicting with a standard of a human community, an uncomfortable result of some degree is still for many people a potential incentive to conform. Also, barring it being a mad society, if its basis for regulating itself falls out of its approach to "what is true or real", this holds its civilization together. Few would argue that a [legit] murderer should avoid punishment because in his own worldview he is not responsible for his actions due to a predetermined history of the cosmos, as well as his belief that he merely exterminated a biological robot or machine which lacked any sacred significance to its life [i.e., sacredness is BS and being born with rather than earning human rights is BS].

The descriptive approaches and classifications (for objectivity) might only be pragmatically universal or resistant to relation and contingency (rather than absolute, flawless, etc). But regardless of the antecedent templates which make it consciously or empirically evident, the world of extrospection / outer experience does defy personal will and wishes; and from that an inter-subjective brand of objectivity can be constructed. Alternative versions are possible (primitive or non-Western cultures of the past did flourish after all, despite conceptions of "what's going on" now deemed incorrect), but the currently dominant one seems the most successful (setting aside its potential unleashing of agencies that could destroy all).

The brain/body's own prior conditions (both native and acquired) for processing specialized tissue stimulations, and discriminating and understanding _x_ impulses as _y_ qualitative phenomena and finally _z_ external objects / affairs.... Can technically undermine the belief that perception and cognition is passive. The commonsense tradition that the latter are devoid of both subconscious (hidden structural mechanism) as well as conscious (exposed) interpretation / pre-conceptual activities somehow being ignored. But since properly functioning / anatomically conventional humans do share the same biological forms, and can communicate / compare their experiences, they accordingly represent themselves as being co-existent in the same reality and can have same-cultural conclusions about it. They can formulate systems, methods, and supposed minimal biased concepts for outputting what functions usefully as objective knowledge and facts.

 

[Spellbound]

What a society sets-up as a consensus standard for minimal bias, however, is still part of the "authority" of its kind of "sub-reality" of nature which one is a member or citizen of. If gods were real, the consequences of defying the applicable one's mandates and conceptions of "what is going on" would have to be contended with. While lightning bolts are not necessarily the consequence of conflicting with a standard of a human community, an uncomfortable result of some degree is still for many people a potential incentive to conform. Also, barring it being a mad society, if its basis for regulating itself falls out of its approach to "what is true or real", this holds its civilization together. Few would argue that a [legit] murderer should avoid punishment because in his own worldview he is not responsible for his actions due to a predetermined history of the cosmos, as well as his belief that he merely exterminated a biological robot or machine which lacked any sacred significance to its life [i.e., sacredness is BS and being born with rather than earning human rights is BS].

This "humans are exactly what you see before us" is the very cause of such evils as murder. There exists a mind of pure negativity on the material level of reality. And this insidious view of yours is the very reason why wars, murders, rapes and tortures continue. Why monsters exist. It is not simply due to some pre-biological programming based on the existence of the "I". It is not some delusion or illusion of some parasitic self-destructive "being". It is a reality.

Our bodies and brains are part of a field that is common to all particles. This is like a life force in living cells down to the molecules. It is the reason why medical miracles are possible.

The brain/body's own prior conditions (both native and acquired) for processing specialized tissue stimulations, and discriminating and understanding _x_ impulses as _y_ qualitative phenomena and finally _z_ external objects / affairs.... Can technically undermine the belief that perception and cognition is passive. The commonsense tradition that the latter are devoid of both subconscious (hidden structural mechanism) as well as conscious (exposed) interpretation / pre-conceptual activities somehow being ignored. But since properly functioning / anatomically conventional humans do share the same biological forms, and can communicate / compare their experiences, they accordingly represent themselves as being co-existent in the same reality and can have same-cultural conclusions about it. They can formulate systems, methods, and supposed minimal biased concepts for outputting what functions usefully as objective knowledge and facts.

Correct. Society and science repeatedly needs to reinforce concepts and beliefs through consensus, but the concepts, when identified, become "objective (based in agreement with others) reality".

 

[Sarkus]

No...the evidence is that she had her husband's DNA on her body.

Is the husband not a "certain person"? Quit being so pedantic.

Evidence of what though? That she had been murdered by her husband? Not necessarily. The very definition of the DNA as evidence is in question here, and it depends on what you are specifically claiming that DNA to be evidence of. Evidence is always a matter of interpretation. There is no evidence without that interpretation. Without that interpretation, it is mere barren fact, empty of implication or meaning.

I would argue that the evidence is simple fact. It is when you try to say "it is evidence for..." or "evidence against..." that you apply interpretation and context... but the observation itself is the evidence. It is devoid of interpretation for or against anything until someone wishes to use it, and then they apply their interpretation.

There is no distinction between evidence and the interpretation of a fact as evidence. They are one in the same.

I don't agree. The evidence is the fact. It in itself is not interpreted. It is understood to be what it is: an observation. The interpretation is the theory, the hypothesis, the claim that the observation supports or counters a given theory.

Evidence doesn't just sit out there waiting to show us which theory of ours is correct.

I'm with Popper on this: evidence/observations can't show which theory is correct, it can only ever falsify a theory. The observation / evidence may fit the theory, but there may come along another observation, another piece of evidence, that counters the theory.

Facts or measurements taken as evidence presuppose a context in which those facts or measurements have a particular meaning AS evidence. Without that context, which consists of propositions of language, the fact means nothing. It is simply a fact, void of any evidential function.

I sense here that we are just arguing semantics, and I have no further wish to do so.

 

[Sarkus]

So now you have access to my thoughts?

By writing in this forum you make a sufficient amount of them part of the public domain.
But I don't need to have access to your thoughts to state that I think the evidence is objective and anyone's interpretation would be subjective. That is surely, after all, what interpretation is... a subjective view of the objective.

 

[Magical Realist]

Where you and I differ, I think, is that I don't identify what really exists with what a particular community happens to believe exists.

If there's a distinction between these, I've yet to encounter it in my own experience. The very phrase "what REALLY exists" is pretty much an abstraction itself that makes sense only to an abstracting mind-- a mind furthermore schooled in the sort of discourse and assertional propositions that such phrases make sense thru. Such abstractions are not direct revelations of our sensory experience. They are constructions of language and society. Without some acquaintance with philosophy, what would "what REALLY exists" refer to? It probably wouldn't even make sense to us, let alone refer to anything meaningfully.

I believe that there's a universe out there independent of my or anyone else's consciousness of it. I believe that it's possible for us to learn new truths about that universe.

I find it hard to conceive of a universe independent of consciousness. What can it mean to even exist without being conceived as doing so in a coexistent mind? We might as well be speaking of a state of opaque mystery, epistemically sealed off from us in every way. The universe I encounter is one that depends upon the presence of consciousness to make itself manifest as existent. I simply can't conceive of an existence independent of being conceived of by a mind.

 

[wellwisher]

I find it hard to conceive of a universe independent of consciousness. What can it mean to even exist without being conceived as doing so in a coexistent mind? We might as well be speaking of a state of opaque mystery, epistemically sealed off from us in every way. The universe I encounter is one that depends upon the presence of consciousness to make itself manifest as existent. I simply can't conceive of an existence independent of being conceived of by a mind.

When people thought the earth was flat, this is what the mind perceived as reality. It turned out there was another hidden reality, of the round earth, that always existed, even apart from middle ages consciousness. It took new tools and new ways of looking outside the box for this to become manifest. Inside the box can't see anything outside the box and fools itself into thinking this is all there is.

There are many things of the unconscious mind that impact how we will see reality. If you look at political orientations, how it is possible for two people to see two very different social realities? This has to due to unconscious filters that half blind people to the data. Certain firmware will absorb certain forms of data and therefore we may not see the entire truth, if one remains unconscious to these compulsions. There is an unconscious reality behind conscious reality that helps to shape what we see.

For example, with terrorism on many people's mind, some see more danger out there than is real. Others see less danger out there than is real. This is due to different ways of coping with unconscious fear and how this absorbs data; fight, flight, denial.

 

[cosmictraveler]

The Bible was written during the Bronze age and we still follow it today, well at least some of us do. Other religions are also from the long ago past but are adhered to as well. So just how far has humanity come if we still are being controlled by something thousands of years old?

 

[C C]

The Bible was written during the Bronze age and we still follow it today, well at least some of us do. Other religions are also from the long ago past but are adhered to as well. So just how far has humanity come if we still are being controlled by something thousands of years old?

The legacy of lots of other ancient contexts might still be regulating us, too.

Caveman Politics: Has Our Violent History Led to an Evolved Preference for Physically Strong Political Leaders?
http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2011/10/111018084634.htm

Autism May Have Had Advantages in Humans' Hunter-Gatherer Past, Researcher Believes
http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2011/06/110603122849.htm

Men's Preference for Certain Body Types Has Evolutionary Roots
http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2015/03/150319150749.htm

Evolutionary psychologists suspect that prejudice is rooted in survival: Our distant ancestors...
http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2011/12/111201174227.htm

Evolutionary Past May Determine How We Choose Leaders
http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2009/10/091025205016.htm

Evidence of Ancient Human History Encoded in Music's Complex Patterns
http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2013/11/131119152816.htm

 

[wellwisher]

One irony is, conservatives, who tend to be more religious, preach self reliance and smaller government. The liberals, which tend to be more atheist, tend to preach dependency via Big Government. If you do the math, belief in God appears to make people more self reliant, while lack of belief in God appears to make people more dependent on man. If I wanted to rule a herd of zombies I would first get rid of religion so they become more dependent.

This comes back to the roots of knowledge. Most of the main religions trace their roots back to a time when self reliance was the only way one could survive. There was no welfare state, most people were dirt poor and enslaved. They had to figure out how to survive in unstable times. Religion offered a way to orientate the mind under this worse case scenario and still allow one find a way to get up and face the world each day. If you think about faith in God, it comes down to the individual, which is where self reliance come from. People may pray together but faith can only develop in individual minds and hearts.

Political group who hate religion, hate it because religious people are harder to control, since they are self reliant even in unstable times.

If you look at Donald Trump, he is highly self reliant due to his self made status and his choice to enter the race without a large support machine. The rest of the establishment candidates appear more like herd animals with most also corralled by PC, which is a manmade up religion of sounds and hoop jumping. His popularity is connected to him reaching the self reliant of heart, who are watching their country go down the tubes via a dependent zombie army.

 

[Magical Realist]

If you do the math, belief in God appears to make people more self reliant, while lack of belief in God appears to make people more dependent on man.

Being reliant on an invisible daddy figure and a Bible to tell you what to think all your life isn't self-reliant. It's the opposite of self-reliance. Religion fosters a sort of mental and emotional sychophantism on the part of its victims to the point that they lack the courage and the willpower to face life on their own and to think for themselves.

 

[Bowser]

One irony is, conservatives, who tend to be more religious, preach self reliance and smaller government. The liberals, which tend to be more atheist, tend to preach dependency via Big Government. If you do the math, belief in God appears to make people more self reliant, while lack of belief in God appears to make people more dependent on man. If I wanted to rule a herd of zombies I would first get rid of religion so they become more dependent.

That actually makes some sense. There does seem to be a larger reliance on government to solve problems in the absence of any God. When religion was more prominent, people were more self-reliant.

 

[Magical Realist]

If you look at Donald Trump, he is highly self reliant due to his self made status and his choice to enter the race without a large support machine.

Donald Trump's religion is only the worship of himself and of money. He is the least religious of all the candidates, and merely barks out what he thinks will appeal to the masses. It shows how pathetically far you rightwingers have twisted Jesus' original antimaterialistic message that you would grovel before an arrogant and greedy miser who speaks with the tact and IQ of a juvenile deliquent. Then again, it's all you got. That's how irrelevant and desperate the Republican party has become. Elevating bigoted hatespeech against hispanic immigrants, women, war veterans, the disabled, and muslims to a virtue.

 

[river]

The flaw of the atheistic argument is the failure to acknowledge the claim that "God exists" let alone "in our heats" in their inquiry process. And thus is not even taken as a serious hypothesis.

That is a flaw in the atheism.

 

[Spellbound]

Yep.

 

[river]

My God is a pacifist by natures law. God is perfect in every way he will just submit and heal your mortality and imperfections. There is no violence of anger in love.

This is non-sense. No god is perfect.

Heal your mortality and imperfections? How so?

 

[river]

Yep.

But the flaw of those that know that god exists; is that god matters.